Policy Exchange, a right-wing think tank, has recently published a report called “The Hijacking of British Islam”.  This is not the first report issued by the neo-con endorsing think tank on the subject of Islam.  However a theme can be detected in all its reports on Islam; namely government disengagement from the Muslim Council of Britain and promotion of the Sufi Muslim Council.  This is curious as the think tank feels it is in a position to judge which organisation should be representing Britain's Muslims instead of the Muslims themselves.

Policy Exchange also seems to hold the view that extremism in Britain is more to do with preaching and published material rather than the key issue of Britain's foreign policy.  One would have thought that compelling evidence such as the videos left behind by some of the bombers - Mohammad Saddique Khan and Shahzad Tanweer -  in which they stated that foreign policy was the issue that motivated their crimes cannot be ignored.  It is a fact that tackling extremism requires a multi-track approach, requiring sound governance of Britain's Muslim institutions, better intelligence, a reappraisal of foreign policy and building trust between government and Britain’s Muslim communities.  How patronising is it to hear politicians sneer at the so-called “victimhood mentality”?  One only has to look around the world to see who the biggest victims of violence are.

Some of the report's conclusions are rather troubling.  The report talks about ambiguity in certain texts which can be open to ideological interpretation.  This is dangerously close to becoming a “thought police” remedy.  It is impractical, and goes against British values of free speech.  Either the highlighted text is legal, or it is not if Policy Exchange doesn't like the text it has found, then it should honour the tradition of free speech that Muslims have had to endure with the likes of the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie and the cartoons of our blessed Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Another conclusion that doesn't seem to make sense, is the report's assertion that compelling imams to speak English will not help combat extremism, but it is a fact that if imams spoke English they would reach out to more young people and English speaking imams would be more culturally sensitive to British norms.

The report is sensationalist, it pays token lip service about the subject of hate and separatist literature not being exclusive to Muslims but then leaves the issue at that.

Having said all that, if Muslim institutions are engaging in any illegal activity or activity that is counter-productive to a harmonious society, then that issue should be highlighted, and they should indeed have to clean up their act.  But Islam should not be treated differently from any other faith or the effect would be counter-productive.

This organisation has long campaigned for better female representation in Britain's mosques.  Females are still denied the facilities they deserve at far too many of our mosques.

The timing of the publication of the report is cynical to coincide with the arrival of King Abdullah II to Britain on a state visit.  There are indeed many troubling aspects of Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia. Our government seems to tolerate the numerous human rights abuses and lack of democratic norms in the kingdom due to our reliance on Saudi oil, supply of intelligence and Saudi influence on other Arab governments.  The most glaring example was the blocking of the inquiry into the alleged corruption by BAe.  The government cited the clichéd excuse of “national security”, because the Saudis threatened to stop cooperating on intelligence issues, should the inquiry have gone ahead.  One can only conclude that the government is not averse to dictators, as long as they are “our” dictators and are willing to spend money.

Finally, the report seems to ignore the issue of government credibility.  It is a fact that New Labour has squandered any credibility it had with Britain's mainstream Muslims due to Tony Blair's need to maintain Britain’s subservience to American foreign policy.  How does the government convince Britain's Muslims that it has their best interests at heart?